MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200130693 · doi:10.1016/j.ebr.2021.100515

“Is this normal after such a major surgery?” Memory complaint after right temporal lobe excision in an adolescent

2021· article· en· W4200130693 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Lou Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsy & Behavior Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemporal lobeHeadachesDepression (economics)Memory impairmentAudiologyPsychologyPsychiatryNeuropsychologyMoodTemporal lobectomyMedicineEpilepsyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Memory deficits are commonly associated with temporal-lobe epilepsy. Memory may worsen after surgical resection of the temporal lobe. Risk factors for decline are structural integrity of the mesial temporal lobe structures and intact pre-operative memory. Subjective memory complaints are influenced by depression or other psychological disorders. A 16-year-old girl underwent resection from the right lateral and medial temporal lobe and after surgery she complained of a significant memory impairment, which was unexpected given her baseline assessment. Before undertaking a neuropsychological assessment, she was referred for a psychiatric consultation which revealed depression, leading to treatment with anditdepressant medication. Over time she also admitted to severe headaches and inadequate sleep. With these issues addressed, assessment indicated memory performance had not changed relative to her preoperative baseline with stability or improvement in memory across longitudinal assessments. This case illustrates the contribution of mood state and other potential factors in contributing to subjective memory complaints.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsy & Behavior ReportsSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207